Behzad S Farivar1, Molly Flannagan1, I Michael Leitman2. 1. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, New York. 2. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York; Department of Surgery, Mount Sinai Beth Israel, New York, New York. Electronic address: mleitman@chpnet.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the continued expansion of robotically assisted procedures, general surgery residents continue to receive more exposure to this new technology as part of their training. There are currently no guidelines or standardized training requirements for robot-assisted procedures during general surgical residency. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of this new technology on general surgery training from the residents' perspective. METHODS: An anonymous, national, web-based survey was conducted on residents enrolled in general surgery training in 2013. The survey was sent to 240 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved general surgery training programs. RESULTS: Overall, 64% of the responding residents were men and had an average age of 29 years. Half of the responses were from postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and PGY2 residents, and the remainder was from the PGY3 level and above. Overall, 50% of the responses were from university training programs, 32% from university-affiliated programs, and 18% from community-based programs. More than 96% of residents noted the availability of the surgical robot system at their training institution. Overall, 63% of residents indicated that they had participated in robotic surgical cases. Most responded that they had assisted in 10 or fewer robotic cases with the most frequent activities being assisting with robotic trocar placement and docking and undocking the robot. Only 18% reported experience with operating the robotic console. More senior residents (PGY3 and above) were involved in robotic cases compared with junior residents (78% vs 48%, p < 0.001). Overall, 60% of residents indicated that they received no prior education or training before their first robotic case. Approximately 64% of residents reported that formal training in robotic surgery was important in residency training and 46% of residents indicated that robotic-assisted cases interfered with resident learning. Only 11% felt that robotic-assisted cases would replace conventional laparoscopic surgery in the future. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates that although the most residents have a robot at their institution and have participated in robotic surgery cases, very few residents received formal training before participating in a robotic case.
INTRODUCTION: With the continued expansion of robotically assisted procedures, general surgery residents continue to receive more exposure to this new technology as part of their training. There are currently no guidelines or standardized training requirements for robot-assisted procedures during general surgical residency. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of this new technology on general surgery training from the residents' perspective. METHODS: An anonymous, national, web-based survey was conducted on residents enrolled in general surgery training in 2013. The survey was sent to 240 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-approved general surgery training programs. RESULTS: Overall, 64% of the responding residents were men and had an average age of 29 years. Half of the responses were from postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) and PGY2 residents, and the remainder was from the PGY3 level and above. Overall, 50% of the responses were from university training programs, 32% from university-affiliated programs, and 18% from community-based programs. More than 96% of residents noted the availability of the surgical robot system at their training institution. Overall, 63% of residents indicated that they had participated in robotic surgical cases. Most responded that they had assisted in 10 or fewer robotic cases with the most frequent activities being assisting with robotic trocar placement and docking and undocking the robot. Only 18% reported experience with operating the robotic console. More senior residents (PGY3 and above) were involved in robotic cases compared with junior residents (78% vs 48%, p < 0.001). Overall, 60% of residents indicated that they received no prior education or training before their first robotic case. Approximately 64% of residents reported that formal training in robotic surgery was important in residency training and 46% of residents indicated that robotic-assisted cases interfered with resident learning. Only 11% felt that robotic-assisted cases would replace conventional laparoscopic surgery in the future. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates that although the most residents have a robot at their institution and have participated in robotic surgery cases, very few residents received formal training before participating in a robotic case.
Authors: Erin H Baker; Samuel W Ross; Ramanathan Seshadri; Ryan Z Swan; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; John B Martinie Journal: J Gastrointest Oncol Date: 2015-08
Authors: Beiqun Zhao; Hannah M Hollandsworth; Arielle M Lee; Jenny Lam; Nicole E Lopez; Benjamin Abbadessa; Samuel Eisenstein; Bard C Cosman; Sonia L Ramamoorthy; Lisa A Parry Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 2.891
Authors: Andreas Kirschniak; Jan-Hendrik Egberts; Frank-Alexander Granderath; Sörgen Torge Mees; Markus Mille; Beat P Müller; Tero Rautio; Anjali A Röth Journal: Visc Med Date: 2018-02-15
Authors: Beiqun Zhao; Jenny Lam; Hannah M Hollandsworth; Arielle M Lee; Nicole E Lopez; Benjamin Abbadessa; Samuel Eisenstein; Bard C Cosman; Sonia L Ramamoorthy; Lisa A Parry Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Matthew G Mullen; Elise P Salerno; Alex D Michaels; Traci L Hedrick; Min-Woong Sohn; Philip W Smith; Bruce D Schirmer; Charles M Friel Journal: J Surg Educ Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 2.891